| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why two dashes in extension load files |
| Date: | 2011-02-15 04:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | D530C2DD-DC9E-415C-ADB6-7A61B27564A9@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Are we deparsing the names of the SQL files to infer the set of
>> version numbers we have to worry about? It seems to me that if
>> there's a list of known version numbers somewhere, we can use dash as
>> the separator without any special restricton.
>
> The list of known version numbers is inferred from the available files,
> not vice versa. IMO that's a feature not a bug. A manually maintained
> list would just be one more thing to forget to update.
Yes, but the truth is that the extension name, at least, is known from the control file.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-15 04:02:40 | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-15 03:35:27 | Re: .gitignore patch for coverage builds |